Could the Twins Afford to Take on Zack Greinke’s Contract?

Yes.

I would be thrilled if the Twins got Grienke and Ray and moved Perez and Pineda to the bullpen.

If they took on all the money the prospect cost might not be that bad.

Nice article. Until the point that it fails to mention that the Twins are on Greinke’s no-trade list. That’s not insurmountable, but usually the team is going to have to offer some kind of incentive to get the player to waive it. I certainly have zero interest in giving a 36 year old an extension. Not sure what other incentive there is to offer.

Whatever within reason this takes

I've always liked Greinke, and let's face it, if he wasn't 36, we wouldn't even be talking about him. Meaning, he's the best pitcher available in my eyes.

The impact of the no trade clause comes down to the individual player's leverage. A 36 year old pitcher making $32 million a year for two more years doesn't have a much for negotiating leverage to improve his deal. He could maybe ask for a couple more million, but in a deal involving this much money already that is pretty negligible. Unless Greinke has some personal reason for not wanting to pitch for the Twins, I don't see that no trade clause being much of a factor.

Greinke also doesn’t have much incentive to waive his no trade clause. Maybe it is personal against the Twins. You don’t know that it isn’t. Calling it not much of a factor is foolish IMO. A lot of the teams on his no trade list are perrenial contenders. So, clearly having a chance to go to a better team isn’t his top priority or those teams wouldn’t be on it. Maybe he likes it in Arizona.

The point still remains that if one is going to write an article about a potential trade target it would seem to me that that player having a “no trade” list with the Twins listed on it is pertinent.

I dare to believe that you would be hard pressed to find a Twins fan who is unaware of the fact that the Twins are on Grienke's no trade list.

It has been thoroughly documented

I dare to believe that you would be hard pressed to find a Twins fan who is unaware of the fact that the Twins are on Grienke's no trade list.

It has been thoroughly documented

For most of the members of this forum? Probably true. However, this was posted on the public Twins Daily site as an article. I’m pretty sure those are read by plenty of people that aren’t members of the forum and that probably would describe themselves as a more casual fan. Pretty good chance they don’t know that.

While I like the concept of adding Greinke I don't see this FO taking on A 30M per year contract. I am not saying they are cheap but so far it seems like they have been more about financial flexibility year to year rather than boxing themselves in to any future payroll constraints. 

I think the FO is more interested in extending their current young performing players(i.e. Kepler, Polanco).  I think they prefer taking calculated risks on players they think are on the verge of a breakout and\or coming back from a down season maybe due to injury (i,e. Schoop, Cron, Pineda).  I think if you add Greinke's salary it severely limits what they have been trying to do which is to prepare to keep our own players for as long as possible and make value moves in the off season.

I know people will argue the money is there and it is but I think this FO is really looking to maximize the money spent in an efficient manner as possible (i.e, Performance value of the player per dollar).  I don't think it is there in a Greinke deal.

While i don't think it is impossible that the FO would go for Greinke IMO it is unlikely.

The impact of the no trade clause comes down to the individual player's leverage. A 36 year old pitcher making $32 million a year for two more years doesn't have a much for negotiating leverage to improve his deal. He could maybe ask for a couple more million, but in a deal involving this much money already that is pretty negligible. Unless Greinke has some personal reason for not wanting to pitch for the Twins, I don't see that no trade clause being much of a factor. 

I've heard Greinke really likes being in AZ and may not want to come to MN just based on personal preference. That could be overblown but he has long been known as a bit of an "oddball" to put it politely and could lead to him blocking a potential trade. We'll see!

Love to have Zack Greinke on the team, if he's actually willing to forego his no-trade clause. Twins have at least a couple pitchers that would love to see how Greinke throws various pitches. Greinke himself might learn something from Ryne Harper, a guy that is thriving despite never owning a big heater. 

The thing about his no-trade clause - keep in mind he signed his current contract in 2015. The Twins had not been in the postseason since 2010 and even though they hung around that season there was no indication that the team was about to become a serious contender. Now that things have changed I would guess he could be persuaded to waive it for us with little in the way of compensation. If you were a good pitcher wouldn't you want to have our offense working for you?

The thing about his no-trade clause - keep in mind he signed his current contract in 2015. The Twins had not been in the postseason since 2010 and even though they hung around that season there was no indication that the team was about to become a serious contender. Now that things have changed I would guess he could be persuaded to waive it for us with little in the way of compensation. If you were a good pitcher wouldn't you want to have our offense working for you?

But the Yankees, Red Sox, Cardinals, Dodgers and other teams on the no trade list are perrenial contenders. So, clearly going to a winner isn’t necesarily what is important to him.

As for what “compensation” it might take, I suppose it is impossible to say. Greinke has to know that at his age there is no team that is going to extend him past the two more years he is already under contract.

He submits a new list of teams every season.

I didn't realize that but even so, after last year there wasn't much buzz about our team.

Teams on no trade lists are many times about wanting to have leverage, and not necessarily because they don't want to be traded, or wouldn't accept to be traded to that particular team. It shouldn't be taken as they would not accept a trade to that team per se.

Assuming he would waive his no trade just because he's like to, wants a better parking spot, an extra bag of peanuts on flights, whatever, I'd be fine to add him.

However, and I think the FO would tell you the same thing, such amdwal would be contingent on Arizona still picking up 30-40% of the deal. Yes, the Twins can afford the whole $30M. Yes, it would require an extra player in the deal, or a slight bump in quality of said prospects in the deal involved. And yes, it's true they are on the hook for the next 2 swasons for payrolls right in line, or less, than this current year.

But the FO would undoubtedly like a little more financial flexibility. After all, they may be looking at extensions, other adds, and we still need another couple of SP for next season more than likely.

Greinke also likes to bat, and is in fact a good hitter. I would think that his preference would be to stay in the NL where he can pitch and hit. That said, I would love to see him in the Twins' rotation.

I don't know about that no-trade clause. 

He may be sore at us, because we used to spank him pretty hard back when he was a Royal.

Heh....

Personally I would rather have three $11,000,000 per year free agent, flame throwing, relievers, whose motto is "Nobody walks but the fans into Target Field". But then I'm fiscally conservative and I like to spread out the risk, rather than lump it all into one 36 year old pitcher. (By the way, we all understand that Mauer's signing was different...younger, a Minnesota boy, the face of the franchise for years...they had to sign him) It is how insurance companies were first formed, by looking at the statistics of wooden sailing ships successfully sailing to and from the New World. It was a dangerous journey. So the ship owners combined forces and agreed that if one ship sank, the others would share the cost of the loss.  Give me three more good youngish relievers and if one fails, maybe the other two will be successful. I don't want to put a fourth of my assets into one 36 year old wooden ship.